Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'occupation', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("retired", "other", "unemploy", "unemploy", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18630 對此問題而言太小，
## (pastp=71.5348, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=451]=1269, stp[ipn_0]=71.4894).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18630 對此問題而言太小，
## (pastp=87.7771, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=58]=852, stp[ipn_0]=86.4821).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2311 | control, N = 1161 | treatment, N = 1151 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 229 | 51.45 ± 13.07 (23 - 75) | 50.80 ± 13.49 (23 - 75) | 52.10 ± 12.66 (28 - 75) | 0.455 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 231 | 0.330 | |||
f | 187 (81%) | 91 (78%) | 96 (83%) | ||
m | 44 (19%) | 25 (22%) | 19 (17%) | ||
occupation | 231 | ||||
day_training | 6 (2.6%) | 2 (1.7%) | 4 (3.5%) | ||
full_time | 26 (11%) | 13 (11%) | 13 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (14%) | 15 (13%) | 17 (15%) | ||
other | 2 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
part_time | 42 (18%) | 23 (20%) | 19 (17%) | ||
retired | 56 (24%) | 26 (22%) | 30 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.5%) | 4 (3.4%) | 4 (3.5%) | ||
shelter | 3 (1.3%) | 3 (2.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 2 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.7%) | 3 (2.6%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
unemploy | 50 (22%) | 27 (23%) | 23 (20%) | ||
marital | 231 | 0.937 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
divore | 25 (11%) | 14 (12%) | 11 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (1.7%) | 2 (1.7%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
married | 70 (30%) | 32 (28%) | 38 (33%) | ||
none | 109 (47%) | 56 (48%) | 53 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.3%) | 2 (1.7%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
widow | 19 (8.2%) | 10 (8.6%) | 9 (7.8%) | ||
edu | 231 | 0.544 | |||
bachelor | 48 (21%) | 20 (17%) | 28 (24%) | ||
diploma | 39 (17%) | 24 (21%) | 15 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (2.2%) | 4 (3.4%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
postgraduate | 15 (6.5%) | 8 (6.9%) | 7 (6.1%) | ||
primary | 19 (8.2%) | 9 (7.8%) | 10 (8.7%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 27 (12%) | 15 (13%) | 12 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 65 (28%) | 30 (26%) | 35 (30%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.6%) | 6 (5.2%) | 7 (6.1%) | ||
fam_income | 231 | ||||
10001_12000 | 7 (3.0%) | 2 (1.7%) | 5 (4.3%) | ||
12001_14000 | 11 (4.8%) | 4 (3.4%) | 7 (6.1%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (5.2%) | 4 (3.4%) | 8 (7.0%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.2%) | 3 (2.6%) | 2 (1.7%) | ||
18001_20000 | 10 (4.3%) | 7 (6.0%) | 3 (2.6%) | ||
20001_above | 39 (17%) | 23 (20%) | 16 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 34 (15%) | 17 (15%) | 17 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 30 (13%) | 13 (11%) | 17 (15%) | ||
6001_8000 | 21 (9.1%) | 12 (10%) | 9 (7.8%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.7%) | 11 (9.5%) | 9 (7.8%) | ||
below_2000 | 42 (18%) | 20 (17%) | 22 (19%) | ||
medication | 231 | 207 (90%) | 104 (90%) | 103 (90%) | 0.982 |
onset_duration | 229 | 15.29 ± 10.89 (0 - 63) | 14.84 ± 11.05 (0 - 56) | 15.75 ± 10.74 (0 - 63) | 0.530 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 227 | 36.26 ± 14.84 (-18 - 72) | 35.88 ± 13.81 (10 - 72) | 36.65 ± 15.86 (-18 - 68) | 0.698 |
Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2311 | control, N = 1161 | treatment, N = 1151 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 231 | 3.16 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.19 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 3.13 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 0.711 |
recovery_stage_b | 231 | 17.87 ± 2.94 (4 - 24) | 18.03 ± 3.15 (4 - 24) | 17.72 ± 2.71 (9 - 24) | 0.432 |
ras_confidence | 231 | 29.81 ± 5.55 (9 - 45) | 29.72 ± 5.74 (9 - 45) | 29.90 ± 5.37 (9 - 45) | 0.815 |
ras_willingness | 231 | 11.65 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.64 ± 2.06 (5 - 15) | 11.65 ± 2.16 (3 - 15) | 0.959 |
ras_goal | 231 | 17.31 ± 3.31 (5 - 25) | 17.17 ± 3.36 (5 - 25) | 17.45 ± 3.27 (5 - 25) | 0.522 |
ras_reliance | 231 | 13.21 ± 2.86 (4 - 20) | 13.09 ± 2.83 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.90 (4 - 20) | 0.533 |
ras_domination | 231 | 9.76 ± 2.41 (3 - 15) | 9.99 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.53 ± 2.36 (3 - 15) | 0.147 |
symptom | 231 | 30.61 ± 9.75 (14 - 70) | 31.07 ± 10.40 (14 - 70) | 30.16 ± 9.08 (14 - 56) | 0.478 |
slof_work | 231 | 22.17 ± 4.67 (10 - 30) | 22.25 ± 4.41 (12 - 30) | 22.09 ± 4.93 (10 - 30) | 0.791 |
slof_relationship | 231 | 24.99 ± 5.76 (9 - 35) | 24.62 ± 5.85 (9 - 35) | 25.37 ± 5.67 (11 - 35) | 0.327 |
satisfaction | 231 | 20.35 ± 7.09 (5 - 35) | 19.89 ± 7.10 (5 - 35) | 20.82 ± 7.08 (5 - 35) | 0.320 |
mhc_emotional | 231 | 10.80 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 10.73 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 10.86 ± 3.70 (3 - 18) | 0.795 |
mhc_social | 231 | 15.26 ± 5.84 (5 - 30) | 15.29 ± 5.99 (5 - 30) | 15.23 ± 5.71 (5 - 30) | 0.931 |
mhc_psychological | 231 | 21.79 ± 6.75 (6 - 36) | 21.77 ± 6.78 (6 - 36) | 21.81 ± 6.75 (6 - 36) | 0.963 |
resilisnce | 231 | 16.60 ± 4.52 (6 - 30) | 16.22 ± 4.26 (6 - 30) | 16.99 ± 4.76 (6 - 30) | 0.193 |
social_provision | 231 | 13.58 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 13.26 ± 2.72 (5 - 20) | 13.90 ± 2.80 (5 - 20) | 0.077 |
els_value_living | 231 | 16.99 ± 3.11 (5 - 25) | 16.89 ± 3.13 (6 - 25) | 17.09 ± 3.11 (5 - 25) | 0.628 |
els_life_fulfill | 231 | 12.78 ± 3.30 (4 - 20) | 12.53 ± 3.37 (4 - 20) | 13.03 ± 3.22 (4 - 20) | 0.242 |
els | 231 | 29.77 ± 5.87 (9 - 45) | 29.41 ± 5.96 (11 - 45) | 30.12 ± 5.79 (9 - 45) | 0.361 |
social_connect | 231 | 26.76 ± 9.01 (8 - 48) | 27.26 ± 8.91 (8 - 48) | 26.26 ± 9.13 (8 - 48) | 0.401 |
shs_agency | 231 | 14.36 ± 4.95 (3 - 24) | 13.99 ± 4.92 (3 - 24) | 14.74 ± 4.98 (3 - 24) | 0.252 |
shs_pathway | 231 | 15.81 ± 4.16 (3 - 24) | 15.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 24) | 16.18 ± 3.94 (4 - 24) | 0.171 |
shs | 231 | 30.17 ± 8.72 (6 - 48) | 29.42 ± 8.89 (6 - 48) | 30.92 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.192 |
esteem | 231 | 12.71 ± 1.65 (9 - 20) | 12.77 ± 1.75 (9 - 20) | 12.65 ± 1.54 (10 - 20) | 0.596 |
mlq_search | 231 | 14.74 ± 3.52 (3 - 21) | 14.45 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.03 ± 3.45 (3 - 21) | 0.213 |
mlq_presence | 231 | 13.44 ± 4.28 (3 - 21) | 13.31 ± 4.19 (3 - 21) | 13.57 ± 4.38 (3 - 21) | 0.652 |
mlq | 231 | 28.17 ± 7.00 (6 - 42) | 27.76 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 28.59 ± 6.99 (6 - 42) | 0.367 |
empower | 231 | 19.22 ± 4.42 (6 - 30) | 19.00 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 19.44 ± 4.41 (6 - 30) | 0.447 |
ismi_resistance | 231 | 14.37 ± 2.66 (5 - 20) | 14.42 ± 2.55 (6 - 20) | 14.31 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.755 |
ismi_discrimation | 231 | 11.69 ± 3.08 (5 - 20) | 11.73 ± 3.06 (5 - 20) | 11.65 ± 3.11 (5 - 20) | 0.843 |
sss_affective | 231 | 10.39 ± 3.65 (3 - 18) | 10.38 ± 3.60 (3 - 18) | 10.39 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.980 |
sss_behavior | 231 | 10.04 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 10.20 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 9.88 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 0.516 |
sss_cognitive | 231 | 8.76 ± 3.74 (3 - 18) | 8.70 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 8.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 0.809 |
sss | 231 | 29.18 ± 10.44 (9 - 54) | 29.28 ± 10.45 (9 - 54) | 29.09 ± 10.48 (9 - 54) | 0.891 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.19 | 0.111 | 2.97, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.059 | 0.158 | -0.369, 0.250 | 0.708 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.130 | 0.152 | -0.169, 0.428 | 0.396 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.164 | 0.220 | -0.268, 0.595 | 0.459 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.0 | 0.276 | 17.5, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.304 | 0.391 | -1.07, 0.462 | 0.437 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.180 | 0.295 | -0.757, 0.397 | 0.542 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.780 | 0.427 | -0.057, 1.62 | 0.070 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.525 | 28.7, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.172 | 0.744 | -1.29, 1.63 | 0.818 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.717 | 0.493 | -0.249, 1.68 | 0.148 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.19 | 0.715 | -0.213, 2.59 | 0.099 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.195 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.014 | 0.276 | -0.527, 0.556 | 0.959 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.122 | 0.206 | -0.282, 0.526 | 0.556 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.317 | 0.299 | -0.270, 0.903 | 0.291 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.309 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.280 | 0.438 | -0.579, 1.14 | 0.524 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.282 | 0.312 | -0.330, 0.893 | 0.368 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.693 | 0.453 | -0.194, 1.58 | 0.128 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.272 | 12.6, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.236 | 0.385 | -0.519, 0.990 | 0.541 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.339 | 0.264 | -0.178, 0.856 | 0.201 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.384 | 0.383 | -0.366, 1.13 | 0.318 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.99 | 0.223 | 9.55, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.461 | 0.316 | -1.08, 0.159 | 0.146 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.057 | 0.261 | -0.454, 0.569 | 0.826 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.865 | 0.378 | 0.123, 1.61 | 0.024 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.1 | 0.909 | 29.3, 32.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.912 | 1.288 | -3.44, 1.61 | 0.479 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.49 | 0.805 | -3.07, 0.086 | 0.066 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.125 | 1.168 | -2.17, 2.41 | 0.915 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.3 | 0.431 | 21.4, 23.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.163 | 0.610 | -1.36, 1.03 | 0.790 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.327 | 0.421 | -0.499, 1.15 | 0.439 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.348 | 0.611 | -0.850, 1.55 | 0.570 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.6 | 0.535 | 23.6, 25.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.745 | 0.758 | -0.741, 2.23 | 0.327 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.067 | 0.517 | -0.946, 1.08 | 0.897 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.764 | 0.750 | -0.706, 2.23 | 0.310 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.9 | 0.660 | 18.6, 21.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.929 | 0.935 | -0.903, 2.76 | 0.321 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.974 | 0.601 | -0.204, 2.15 | 0.107 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.586 | 0.872 | -1.12, 2.30 | 0.502 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.347 | 10.1, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.128 | 0.492 | -0.836, 1.09 | 0.795 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.411 | 0.298 | -0.173, 0.995 | 0.170 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.090 | 0.433 | -0.938, 0.758 | 0.836 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.555 | 14.2, 16.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.067 | 0.787 | -1.61, 1.48 | 0.932 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.865 | 0.511 | -0.136, 1.87 | 0.093 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.082 | 0.741 | -1.54, 1.37 | 0.912 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 0.644 | 20.5, 23.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.041 | 0.913 | -1.75, 1.83 | 0.964 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.16 | 0.569 | 0.043, 2.27 | 0.044 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.234 | 0.826 | -1.85, 1.38 | 0.777 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.413 | 15.4, 17.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.776 | 0.585 | -0.371, 1.92 | 0.186 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.921 | 0.431 | 0.075, 1.77 | 0.035 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.705 | 0.626 | -0.521, 1.93 | 0.261 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.264 | 12.7, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.646 | 0.375 | -0.089, 1.38 | 0.086 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.141 | 0.268 | -0.666, 0.383 | 0.598 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.364 | 0.388 | -0.397, 1.13 | 0.349 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 0.293 | 16.3, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.199 | 0.415 | -0.615, 1.01 | 0.632 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.363 | 0.291 | -0.207, 0.934 | 0.214 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.446 | 0.422 | -0.381, 1.27 | 0.292 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.5 | 0.307 | 11.9, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.509 | 0.435 | -0.343, 1.36 | 0.243 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.237 | 0.283 | -0.318, 0.791 | 0.404 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.383 | 0.411 | -0.422, 1.19 | 0.353 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.554 | 28.3, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.708 | 0.785 | -0.830, 2.25 | 0.368 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.625 | 0.491 | -0.337, 1.59 | 0.205 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.780 | 0.712 | -0.616, 2.18 | 0.275 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.3 | 0.851 | 25.6, 28.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.998 | 1.206 | -3.36, 1.37 | 0.409 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.003 | 0.753 | -1.48, 1.47 | 0.997 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.97 | 1.092 | -5.11, -0.830 | 0.007 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 14.0 | 0.463 | 13.1, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.748 | 0.656 | -0.539, 2.03 | 0.256 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.583 | 0.407 | -0.215, 1.38 | 0.154 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.293 | 0.591 | -0.866, 1.45 | 0.621 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.376 | 14.7, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.752 | 0.533 | -0.293, 1.80 | 0.160 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.669 | 0.365 | -0.047, 1.39 | 0.069 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.237 | 0.530 | -0.802, 1.28 | 0.656 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.800 | 27.9, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.50 | 1.134 | -0.722, 3.72 | 0.187 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.25 | 0.709 | -0.140, 2.64 | 0.080 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.516 | 1.029 | -1.50, 2.53 | 0.617 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.146 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.115 | 0.208 | -0.522, 0.292 | 0.580 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.150 | 0.190 | -0.522, 0.222 | 0.430 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.110 | 0.274 | -0.428, 0.648 | 0.689 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.324 | 13.8, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.578 | 0.460 | -0.323, 1.48 | 0.210 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.810 | 0.365 | 0.094, 1.53 | 0.028 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.563 | 0.530 | -1.60, 0.475 | 0.289 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.391 | 12.5, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.255 | 0.554 | -0.830, 1.34 | 0.646 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.959 | 0.423 | 0.129, 1.79 | 0.025 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.218 | 0.614 | -1.42, 0.985 | 0.723 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 0.649 | 26.5, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.833 | 0.919 | -0.969, 2.63 | 0.366 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.77 | 0.706 | 0.382, 3.15 | 0.013 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.768 | 1.023 | -2.77, 1.24 | 0.454 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.418 | 18.2, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.443 | 0.592 | -0.717, 1.60 | 0.454 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.04 | 0.397 | 0.257, 1.81 | 0.010 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.484 | 0.576 | -1.61, 0.644 | 0.402 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.241 | 14.0, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.109 | 0.341 | -0.778, 0.559 | 0.749 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.378 | 0.279 | -0.169, 0.924 | 0.177 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.517 | 0.404 | -0.275, 1.31 | 0.203 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.286 | 11.2, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.081 | 0.406 | -0.876, 0.715 | 0.843 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.539 | 0.340 | -1.21, 0.128 | 0.115 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.445 | 0.493 | -1.41, 0.520 | 0.367 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.340 | 9.71, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.012 | 0.482 | -0.933, 0.957 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.550 | 0.313 | -1.16, 0.065 | 0.082 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.345 | 0.455 | -1.24, 0.547 | 0.450 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.343 | 9.53, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.320 | 0.486 | -1.27, 0.633 | 0.511 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.674 | 0.315 | -1.29, -0.057 | 0.034 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.063 | 0.457 | -0.832, 0.958 | 0.891 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.70 | 0.340 | 8.03, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.119 | 0.482 | -0.826, 1.06 | 0.805 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.578 | 0.318 | -1.20, 0.046 | 0.072 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.260 | 0.462 | -1.17, 0.645 | 0.574 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.963 | 27.4, 31.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.189 | 1.365 | -2.86, 2.49 | 0.890 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.76 | 0.808 | -3.35, -0.180 | 0.031 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.482 | 1.173 | -2.78, 1.82 | 0.682 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.19 (95% CI [2.97, 3.41], t(354) = 28.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.25], t(354) = -0.38, p = 0.708; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.43], t(354) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.60], t(354) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.03 (95% CI [17.48, 18.57], t(354) = 65.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.46], t(354) = -0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.40], t(354) = -0.61, p = 0.541; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.62], t(354) = 1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.72 (95% CI [28.69, 30.75], t(354) = 56.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.63], t(354) = 0.23, p = 0.818; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.68], t(354) = 1.46, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.59], t(354) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.64 (95% CI [11.26, 12.02], t(354) = 59.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.56], t(354) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 6.81e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.53], t(354) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.90], t(354) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.17 (95% CI [16.57, 17.78], t(354) = 55.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.14], t(354) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.89], t(354) = 0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.58], t(354) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.09 (95% CI [12.56, 13.63], t(354) = 48.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.99], t(354) = 0.61, p = 0.541; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.86], t(354) = 1.29, p = 0.199; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.13], t(354) = 1.00, p = 0.316; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.99 (95% CI [9.55, 10.43], t(354) = 44.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.16], t(354) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.57], t(354) = 0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.12, 1.61], t(354) = 2.29, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [0.05, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.07 (95% CI [29.29, 32.85], t(354) = 34.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.44, 1.61], t(354) = -0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-3.07, 0.09], t(354) = -1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.32, 8.86e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-2.17, 2.41], t(354) = 0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.25 (95% CI [21.41, 23.09], t(354) = 51.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.03], t(354) = -0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.15], t(354) = 0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.55], t(354) = 0.57, p = 0.569; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.62 (95% CI [23.57, 25.67], t(354) = 46.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.74, 2.23], t(354) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.08], t(354) = 0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.23], t(354) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.89 (95% CI [18.60, 21.18], t(354) = 30.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.76], t(354) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.15], t(354) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.30], t(354) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.73 (95% CI [10.05, 11.41], t(354) = 30.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.09], t(354) = 0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.00], t(354) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.76], t(354) = -0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.29 (95% CI [14.20, 16.38], t(354) = 27.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.48], t(354) = -0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.87], t(354) = 1.69, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.37], t(354) = -0.11, p = 0.912; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.29e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.77 (95% CI [20.50, 23.03], t(354) = 33.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.75, 1.83], t(354) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 6.03e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [0.04, 2.27], t(354) = 2.04, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [6.21e-03, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.38], t(354) = -0.28, p = 0.777; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.22 (95% CI [15.41, 17.02], t(354) = 39.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.92], t(354) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [0.07, 1.77], t(354) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.02, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.93], t(354) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.74, 13.78], t(354) = 50.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.38], t(354) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.38], t(354) = -0.53, p = 0.597; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.13], t(354) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.89 (95% CI [16.31, 17.46], t(354) = 57.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.01], t(354) = 0.48, p = 0.632; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.93], t(354) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.27], t(354) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.53 (95% CI [11.92, 13.13], t(354) = 40.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.36], t(354) = 1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.79], t(354) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.19], t(354) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.41 (95% CI [28.33, 30.50], t(354) = 53.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.83, 2.25], t(354) = 0.90, p = 0.367; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.59], t(354) = 1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.18], t(354) = 1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.26 (95% CI [25.59, 28.93], t(354) = 32.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-3.36, 1.37], t(354) = -0.83, p = 0.408; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.55e-03, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.47], t(354) = -3.39e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = -2.71e-04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.97, 95% CI [-5.11, -0.83], t(354) = -2.72, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.54, -0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.99 (95% CI [13.08, 14.90], t(354) = 30.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.03], t(354) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.38], t(354) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.45], t(354) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.43 (95% CI [14.69, 16.17], t(354) = 41.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.80], t(354) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.39], t(354) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.28], t(354) = 0.45, p = 0.655; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.42 (95% CI [27.85, 30.99], t(354) = 36.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-0.72, 3.72], t(354) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.64], t(354) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.53], t(354) = 0.50, p = 0.616; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.69e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.77 (95% CI [12.48, 13.05], t(354) = 87.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.29], t(354) = -0.55, p = 0.579; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.22], t(354) = -0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.65], t(354) = 0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.45 (95% CI [13.81, 15.08], t(354) = 44.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.48], t(354) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.09, 1.53], t(354) = 2.22, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.03, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.60, 0.47], t(354) = -1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.54, 14.08], t(354) = 34.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.34], t(354) = 0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [0.13, 1.79], t(354) = 2.27, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.03, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.99], t(354) = -0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.76 (95% CI [26.49, 29.03], t(354) = 42.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.97, 2.63], t(354) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.77, 95% CI [0.38, 3.15], t(354) = 2.50, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.05, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-2.77, 1.24], t(354) = -0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.00 (95% CI [18.18, 19.82], t(354) = 45.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.60], t(354) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [0.26, 1.81], t(354) = 2.61, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.06, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.61, 0.64], t(354) = -0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.95, 14.89], t(354) = 59.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.56], t(354) = -0.32, p = 0.749; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.92], t(354) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.31], t(354) = 1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.73 (95% CI [11.17, 12.29], t(354) = 40.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.72], t(354) = -0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.13], t(354) = -1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.52], t(354) = -0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.38 (95% CI [9.71, 11.05], t(354) = 30.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.96], t(354) = 0.02, p = 0.980; Std. beta = 3.27e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.06], t(354) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.55], t(354) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.20 (95% CI [9.53, 10.87], t(354) = 29.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.63], t(354) = -0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.06], t(354) = -2.14, p = 0.032; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.35, -0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.96], t(354) = 0.14, p = 0.891; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.70 (95% CI [8.03, 9.37], t(354) = 25.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.06], t(354) = 0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.05], t(354) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.65], t(354) = -0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.28 (95% CI [27.39, 31.16], t(354) = 30.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-2.86, 2.49], t(354) = -0.14, p = 0.890; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.76, 95% CI [-3.35, -0.18], t(354) = -2.18, p = 0.029; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.32, -0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.78, 1.82], t(354) = -0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,139.934 | 1,151.593 | -566.967 | 1,133.934 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,141.840 | 1,165.157 | -564.920 | 1,129.840 | 4.094 | 3 | 0.251 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,744.405 | 1,756.063 | -869.202 | 1,738.405 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,746.213 | 1,769.530 | -867.107 | 1,734.213 | 4.191 | 3 | 0.242 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,189.929 | 2,201.587 | -1,091.964 | 2,183.929 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,180.313 | 2,203.629 | -1,084.156 | 2,168.313 | 15.616 | 3 | 0.001 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,492.423 | 1,504.081 | -743.211 | 1,486.423 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,493.799 | 1,517.116 | -740.900 | 1,481.799 | 4.624 | 3 | 0.202 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,820.087 | 1,831.745 | -907.043 | 1,814.087 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,815.316 | 1,838.633 | -901.658 | 1,803.316 | 10.771 | 3 | 0.013 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,716.789 | 1,728.447 | -855.394 | 1,710.789 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,713.648 | 1,736.965 | -850.824 | 1,701.648 | 9.141 | 3 | 0.027 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,618.547 | 1,630.205 | -806.273 | 1,612.547 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,612.820 | 1,636.136 | -800.410 | 1,600.820 | 11.727 | 3 | 0.008 |
symptom | null | 3 | 2,562.227 | 2,573.886 | -1,278.114 | 2,556.227 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 2,561.758 | 2,585.074 | -1,274.879 | 2,549.758 | 6.469 | 3 | 0.091 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,044.226 | 2,055.884 | -1,019.113 | 2,038.226 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,047.260 | 2,070.577 | -1,017.630 | 2,035.260 | 2.965 | 3 | 0.397 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,198.332 | 2,209.991 | -1,096.166 | 2,192.332 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,200.199 | 2,223.516 | -1,094.099 | 2,188.199 | 4.134 | 3 | 0.247 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,341.747 | 2,353.405 | -1,167.873 | 2,335.747 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,337.727 | 2,361.043 | -1,162.863 | 2,325.727 | 10.020 | 3 | 0.018 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,858.359 | 1,870.018 | -926.180 | 1,852.359 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,861.359 | 1,884.676 | -924.680 | 1,849.359 | 3.000 | 3 | 0.392 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,215.081 | 2,226.739 | -1,104.540 | 2,209.081 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,216.144 | 2,239.461 | -1,102.072 | 2,204.144 | 4.937 | 3 | 0.176 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,314.073 | 2,325.731 | -1,154.036 | 2,308.073 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,313.627 | 2,336.943 | -1,150.813 | 2,301.627 | 6.446 | 3 | 0.092 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,045.461 | 2,057.120 | -1,019.731 | 2,039.461 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,031.722 | 2,055.039 | -1,009.861 | 2,019.722 | 19.740 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,702.982 | 1,714.640 | -848.491 | 1,696.982 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,703.603 | 1,726.920 | -845.802 | 1,691.603 | 5.379 | 3 | 0.146 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,776.460 | 1,788.118 | -885.230 | 1,770.460 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,773.318 | 1,796.635 | -880.659 | 1,761.318 | 9.141 | 3 | 0.027 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,790.643 | 1,802.301 | -892.321 | 1,784.643 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,789.465 | 1,812.782 | -888.733 | 1,777.465 | 7.177 | 3 | 0.066 |
els | null | 3 | 2,209.508 | 2,221.166 | -1,101.754 | 2,203.508 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,205.138 | 2,228.455 | -1,096.569 | 2,193.138 | 10.370 | 3 | 0.016 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 2,524.400 | 2,536.058 | -1,259.200 | 2,518.400 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,514.226 | 2,537.543 | -1,251.113 | 2,502.226 | 16.174 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,076.543 | 2,088.201 | -1,035.271 | 2,070.543 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,074.734 | 2,098.051 | -1,031.367 | 2,062.734 | 7.809 | 3 | 0.050 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,953.399 | 1,965.057 | -973.700 | 1,947.399 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,948.099 | 1,971.415 | -968.049 | 1,936.099 | 11.300 | 3 | 0.010 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,474.839 | 2,486.497 | -1,234.419 | 2,468.839 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,470.098 | 2,493.414 | -1,229.049 | 2,458.098 | 10.741 | 3 | 0.013 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,324.090 | 1,335.748 | -659.045 | 1,318.090 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,329.246 | 1,352.563 | -658.623 | 1,317.246 | 0.844 | 3 | 0.839 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,874.160 | 1,885.818 | -934.080 | 1,868.160 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,874.026 | 1,897.343 | -931.013 | 1,862.026 | 6.134 | 3 | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,001.633 | 2,013.291 | -997.816 | 1,995.633 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,999.736 | 2,023.052 | -993.868 | 1,987.736 | 7.897 | 3 | 0.048 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,368.140 | 2,379.798 | -1,181.070 | 2,362.140 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,365.768 | 2,389.085 | -1,176.884 | 2,353.768 | 8.371 | 3 | 0.039 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,020.930 | 2,032.589 | -1,007.465 | 2,014.930 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,018.294 | 2,041.610 | -1,003.147 | 2,006.294 | 8.637 | 3 | 0.035 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,670.214 | 1,681.873 | -832.107 | 1,664.214 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,665.154 | 1,688.470 | -826.577 | 1,653.154 | 11.061 | 3 | 0.011 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,799.751 | 1,811.409 | -896.875 | 1,793.751 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,795.455 | 1,818.771 | -891.727 | 1,783.455 | 10.296 | 3 | 0.016 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,867.842 | 1,879.500 | -930.921 | 1,861.842 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,863.447 | 1,886.764 | -925.723 | 1,851.447 | 10.395 | 3 | 0.015 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,870.781 | 1,882.439 | -932.390 | 1,864.781 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,868.431 | 1,891.748 | -928.216 | 1,856.431 | 8.350 | 3 | 0.039 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,870.742 | 1,882.400 | -932.371 | 1,864.742 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,867.202 | 1,890.518 | -927.601 | 1,855.202 | 9.541 | 3 | 0.023 |
sss | null | 3 | 2,596.499 | 2,608.158 | -1,295.250 | 2,590.499 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 2,590.836 | 2,614.153 | -1,289.418 | 2,578.836 | 11.663 | 3 | 0.009 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 116 | 3.19 ± 1.20 | 115 | 3.13 ± 1.20 | 0.708 | 0.062 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 68 | 3.32 ± 1.17 | -0.136 | 61 | 3.42 ± 1.16 | -0.308 | 0.612 | -0.110 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 116 | 18.03 ± 2.97 | 115 | 17.72 ± 2.97 | 0.437 | 0.170 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 68 | 17.85 ± 2.71 | 0.101 | 61 | 18.32 ± 2.68 | -0.336 | 0.317 | -0.267 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 116 | 29.72 ± 5.66 | 115 | 29.90 ± 5.66 | 0.818 | -0.058 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 68 | 30.44 ± 5.00 | -0.242 | 61 | 31.80 ± 4.91 | -0.644 | 0.121 | -0.460 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 116 | 11.64 ± 2.10 | 115 | 11.65 ± 2.10 | 0.959 | -0.011 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 68 | 11.76 ± 1.91 | -0.098 | 61 | 12.09 ± 1.88 | -0.351 | 0.323 | -0.265 |
ras_goal | 1st | 116 | 17.17 ± 3.33 | 115 | 17.45 ± 3.33 | 0.524 | -0.149 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 68 | 17.45 ± 3.00 | -0.150 | 61 | 18.43 ± 2.95 | -0.518 | 0.064 | -0.517 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 116 | 13.09 ± 2.93 | 115 | 13.33 ± 2.93 | 0.541 | -0.149 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 68 | 13.43 ± 2.61 | -0.214 | 61 | 14.05 ± 2.56 | -0.455 | 0.175 | -0.390 |
ras_domination | 1st | 116 | 9.99 ± 2.40 | 115 | 9.53 ± 2.40 | 0.146 | 0.289 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 68 | 10.05 ± 2.25 | -0.036 | 61 | 10.45 ± 2.22 | -0.578 | 0.306 | -0.253 |
symptom | 1st | 116 | 31.07 ± 9.79 | 115 | 30.16 ± 9.79 | 0.479 | 0.189 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 68 | 29.58 ± 8.55 | 0.310 | 61 | 28.79 ± 8.37 | 0.284 | 0.598 | 0.164 |
slof_work | 1st | 116 | 22.25 ± 4.64 | 115 | 22.09 ± 4.64 | 0.790 | 0.064 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 68 | 22.58 ± 4.14 | -0.129 | 61 | 22.76 ± 4.07 | -0.266 | 0.798 | -0.073 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 116 | 24.62 ± 5.76 | 115 | 25.37 ± 5.76 | 0.327 | -0.240 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 68 | 24.69 ± 5.13 | -0.022 | 61 | 26.20 ± 5.04 | -0.267 | 0.093 | -0.485 |
satisfaction | 1st | 116 | 19.89 ± 7.10 | 115 | 20.82 ± 7.10 | 0.321 | -0.258 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 68 | 20.86 ± 6.25 | -0.270 | 61 | 22.38 ± 6.12 | -0.433 | 0.165 | -0.421 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 116 | 10.73 ± 3.74 | 115 | 10.86 ± 3.74 | 0.795 | -0.072 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 68 | 11.14 ± 3.24 | -0.231 | 61 | 11.18 ± 3.17 | -0.181 | 0.946 | -0.022 |
mhc_social | 1st | 116 | 15.29 ± 5.98 | 115 | 15.23 ± 5.98 | 0.932 | 0.022 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 68 | 16.16 ± 5.27 | -0.282 | 61 | 16.01 ± 5.17 | -0.256 | 0.871 | 0.049 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 116 | 21.77 ± 6.94 | 115 | 21.81 ± 6.94 | 0.964 | -0.012 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 68 | 22.93 ± 6.06 | -0.340 | 61 | 22.73 ± 5.93 | -0.271 | 0.856 | 0.057 |
resilisnce | 1st | 116 | 16.22 ± 4.45 | 115 | 16.99 ± 4.45 | 0.186 | -0.297 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 68 | 17.14 ± 4.04 | -0.353 | 61 | 18.62 ± 3.98 | -0.623 | 0.037 | -0.567 |
social_provision | 1st | 116 | 13.26 ± 2.85 | 115 | 13.90 ± 2.85 | 0.086 | -0.400 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 68 | 13.12 ± 2.57 | 0.088 | 61 | 14.13 ± 2.52 | -0.138 | 0.025 | -0.625 |
els_value_living | 1st | 116 | 16.89 ± 3.16 | 115 | 17.09 ± 3.16 | 0.632 | -0.113 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 68 | 17.25 ± 2.83 | -0.207 | 61 | 17.90 ± 2.78 | -0.462 | 0.193 | -0.368 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 116 | 12.53 ± 3.30 | 115 | 13.03 ± 3.30 | 0.243 | -0.300 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 68 | 12.76 ± 2.91 | -0.140 | 61 | 13.65 ± 2.86 | -0.365 | 0.080 | -0.526 |
els | 1st | 116 | 29.41 ± 5.96 | 115 | 30.12 ± 5.96 | 0.368 | -0.241 | ||
els | 2nd | 68 | 30.04 ± 5.21 | -0.213 | 61 | 31.53 ± 5.10 | -0.479 | 0.102 | -0.507 |
social_connect | 1st | 116 | 27.26 ± 9.17 | 115 | 26.26 ± 9.17 | 0.409 | 0.222 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 68 | 27.26 ± 8.01 | 0.001 | 61 | 23.29 ± 7.84 | 0.661 | 0.005 | 0.882 |
shs_agency | 1st | 116 | 13.99 ± 4.99 | 115 | 14.74 ± 4.99 | 0.256 | -0.307 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 68 | 14.57 ± 4.35 | -0.239 | 61 | 15.62 ± 4.26 | -0.360 | 0.171 | -0.427 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 116 | 15.43 ± 4.05 | 115 | 16.18 ± 4.05 | 0.160 | -0.342 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 68 | 16.10 ± 3.61 | -0.304 | 61 | 17.09 ± 3.55 | -0.412 | 0.118 | -0.450 |
shs | 1st | 116 | 29.42 ± 8.61 | 115 | 30.92 ± 8.61 | 0.187 | -0.353 | ||
shs | 2nd | 68 | 30.67 ± 7.53 | -0.295 | 61 | 32.69 ± 7.37 | -0.416 | 0.126 | -0.475 |
esteem | 1st | 116 | 12.77 ± 1.58 | 115 | 12.65 ± 1.58 | 0.580 | 0.098 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 68 | 12.62 ± 1.51 | 0.128 | 61 | 12.61 ± 1.51 | 0.034 | 0.985 | 0.004 |
mlq_search | 1st | 116 | 14.45 ± 3.49 | 115 | 15.03 ± 3.49 | 0.210 | -0.260 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 68 | 15.26 ± 3.23 | -0.364 | 61 | 15.27 ± 3.20 | -0.111 | 0.979 | -0.007 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 116 | 13.31 ± 4.21 | 115 | 13.57 ± 4.21 | 0.646 | -0.099 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 68 | 14.27 ± 3.86 | -0.373 | 61 | 14.31 ± 3.81 | -0.288 | 0.956 | -0.014 |
mlq | 1st | 116 | 27.76 ± 6.99 | 115 | 28.59 ± 6.99 | 0.366 | -0.194 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 68 | 29.52 ± 6.41 | -0.412 | 61 | 29.59 ± 6.33 | -0.233 | 0.954 | -0.015 |
empower | 1st | 116 | 19.00 ± 4.50 | 115 | 19.44 ± 4.50 | 0.454 | -0.186 | ||
empower | 2nd | 68 | 20.04 ± 3.99 | -0.434 | 61 | 19.99 ± 3.92 | -0.231 | 0.953 | 0.017 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 116 | 14.42 ± 2.59 | 115 | 14.31 ± 2.59 | 0.749 | 0.064 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 68 | 14.80 ± 2.42 | -0.222 | 61 | 15.21 ± 2.39 | -0.525 | 0.337 | -0.239 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 116 | 11.73 ± 3.08 | 115 | 11.65 ± 3.08 | 0.843 | 0.039 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 68 | 11.19 ± 2.89 | 0.258 | 61 | 10.67 ± 2.87 | 0.472 | 0.301 | 0.252 |
sss_affective | 1st | 116 | 10.38 ± 3.66 | 115 | 10.39 ± 3.66 | 0.980 | -0.006 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 68 | 9.83 ± 3.23 | 0.292 | 61 | 9.50 ± 3.16 | 0.476 | 0.555 | 0.177 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 116 | 10.20 ± 3.69 | 115 | 9.88 ± 3.69 | 0.511 | 0.170 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 68 | 9.52 ± 3.25 | 0.357 | 61 | 9.27 ± 3.19 | 0.324 | 0.651 | 0.136 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 116 | 8.70 ± 3.66 | 115 | 8.82 ± 3.66 | 0.805 | -0.062 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 68 | 8.12 ± 3.24 | 0.302 | 61 | 7.98 ± 3.18 | 0.439 | 0.804 | 0.074 |
sss | 1st | 116 | 29.28 ± 10.37 | 115 | 29.09 ± 10.37 | 0.890 | 0.039 | ||
sss | 2nd | 68 | 27.51 ± 8.96 | 0.366 | 61 | 26.84 ± 8.75 | 0.466 | 0.668 | 0.139 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(325.31) = -0.38, p = 0.708, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.25)
2st
t(355.33) = 0.51, p = 0.612, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.51)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(282.35) = -0.78, p = 0.437, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.47)
2st
t(355.03) = 1.00, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.41)
ras_confidence
1st
t(268.24) = 0.23, p = 0.818, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.64)
2st
t(349.72) = 1.56, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.36 to 3.08)
ras_willingness
1st
t(281.26) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.56)
2st
t(354.83) = 0.99, p = 0.323, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.99)
ras_goal
1st
t(275.66) = 0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.14)
2st
t(353.36) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.00)
ras_reliance
1st
t(271.50) = 0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.99)
2st
t(351.61) = 1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.52)
ras_domination
1st
t(295.57) = -1.46, p = 0.146, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.16)
2st
t(356.00) = 1.02, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.18)
symptom
1st
t(263.35) = -0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.45 to 1.62)
2st
t(345.73) = -0.53, p = 0.598, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.72 to 2.15)
slof_work
1st
t(272.31) = -0.27, p = 0.790, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.04)
2st
t(352.00) = 0.26, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.61)
slof_relationship
1st
t(271.05) = 0.98, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.24)
2st
t(351.38) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.27)
satisfaction
1st
t(265.64) = 0.99, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.91 to 2.77)
2st
t(347.79) = 1.39, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.63 to 3.66)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(260.96) = 0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.10)
2st
t(343.17) = 0.07, p = 0.946, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.15)
mhc_social
1st
t(266.46) = -0.09, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.48)
2st
t(348.44) = -0.16, p = 0.871, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.96 to 1.66)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(263.08) = 0.05, p = 0.964, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.84)
2st
t(345.47) = -0.18, p = 0.856, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.27 to 1.89)
resilisnce
1st
t(279.66) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.93)
2st
t(354.49) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.87)
social_provision
1st
t(275.94) = 1.72, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.38)
2st
t(353.45) = 2.25, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.89)
els_value_living
1st
t(273.89) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.02)
2st
t(352.70) = 1.30, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.62)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(266.70) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.37)
2st
t(348.62) = 1.75, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.89)
els
1st
t(263.35) = 0.90, p = 0.368, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.84 to 2.25)
2st
t(345.74) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.27)
social_connect
1st
t(263.20) = -0.83, p = 0.409, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.37 to 1.38)
2st
t(345.59) = -2.84, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-6.72 to -1.22)
shs_agency
1st
t(262.78) = 1.14, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.04)
2st
t(345.16) = 1.37, p = 0.171, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.53)
shs_pathway
1st
t(271.57) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.80)
2st
t(351.65) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.23)
shs
1st
t(263.40) = 1.32, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.73 to 3.73)
2st
t(345.79) = 1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.57 to 4.60)
esteem
1st
t(314.07) = -0.55, p = 0.580, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.29)
2st
t(355.59) = -0.02, p = 0.985, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.52)
mlq_search
1st
t(289.76) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.48)
2st
t(355.82) = 0.03, p = 0.979, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.13)
mlq_presence
1st
t(284.35) = 0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.34)
2st
t(355.33) = 0.05, p = 0.956, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.36)
mlq
1st
t(284.84) = 0.91, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.64)
2st
t(355.39) = 0.06, p = 0.954, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.27)
empower
1st
t(269.42) = 0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.61)
2st
t(350.46) = -0.06, p = 0.953, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.33)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(293.95) = -0.32, p = 0.749, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.56)
2st
t(355.97) = 0.96, p = 0.337, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.24)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(298.03) = -0.20, p = 0.843, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.72)
2st
t(356.00) = -1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.47)
sss_affective
1st
t(266.62) = 0.02, p = 0.980, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.96)
2st
t(348.57) = -0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.78)
sss_behavior
1st
t(266.21) = -0.66, p = 0.511, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.64)
2st
t(348.25) = -0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.86)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(267.99) = 0.25, p = 0.805, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.07)
2st
t(349.54) = -0.25, p = 0.804, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.97)
sss
1st
t(259.31) = -0.14, p = 0.890, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.88 to 2.50)
2st
t(341.12) = -0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.74 to 2.40)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(176.47) = 1.84, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.61)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(152.49) = 1.94, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.21)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(145.56) = 3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.88 to 2.93)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(151.94) = 2.02, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.01 to 0.87)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(149.17) = 2.97, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.33 to 1.62)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(147.14) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.27)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(159.26) = 3.36, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.46)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(143.21) = -1.61, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.04 to 0.31)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(147.53) = 1.52, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.55)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(146.92) = 1.53, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.91)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(144.31) = 2.47, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.31 to 2.81)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(142.06) = 1.02, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.94)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(144.70) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.85)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(143.08) = 1.54, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.11)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(151.15) = 3.58, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.73 to 2.52)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(149.31) = 0.79, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.78)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(148.31) = 2.64, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.42)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(144.82) = 2.08, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.03 to 1.21)
els
1st vs 2st
t(143.21) = 2.72, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.38 to 2.43)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(143.14) = -3.75, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.54 to -1.41)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(142.93) = 2.04, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.03 to 1.72)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(147.18) = 2.36, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.67)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(143.23) = 2.36, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.29 to 3.24)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(169.49) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.35)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(156.24) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.01)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(153.49) = 1.66, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.62)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(153.74) = 1.34, p = 0.362, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.47 to 2.46)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(146.13) = 1.32, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.38)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(158.41) = 3.05, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.32 to 1.47)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(160.56) = -2.75, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.69 to -0.28)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(144.78) = -2.71, p = 0.015, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.55 to -0.24)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(144.58) = -1.84, p = 0.134, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.04)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(145.44) = -2.50, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.50 to -0.18)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(141.28) = -2.64, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-3.93 to -0.56)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(169.94) = 0.85, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.43)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(149.23) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.40)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(143.23) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.69)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(148.76) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.53)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(146.36) = 0.90, p = 0.737, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.90)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(144.60) = 1.28, p = 0.403, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.86)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(155.09) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.57)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(141.18) = -1.85, p = 0.133, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.08 to 0.10)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(144.94) = 0.78, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.16)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(144.41) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.09)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(142.14) = 1.62, p = 0.215, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.16)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(140.19) = 1.38, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.00)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(142.48) = 1.69, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.88)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(141.07) = 2.03, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.03 to 2.28)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(148.07) = 2.13, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.77)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(146.48) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.39)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(145.61) = 1.25, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.94)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(142.58) = 0.84, p = 0.809, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.80)
els
1st vs 2st
t(141.18) = 1.27, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.60)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(141.12) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.49)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(140.94) = 1.43, p = 0.310, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.39)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(144.63) = 1.83, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.39)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(141.20) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.65)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(163.93) = -0.79, p = 0.862, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.23)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(152.48) = 2.21, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.53)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(150.10) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.80)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(150.32) = 2.50, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.37 to 3.16)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(143.72) = 2.61, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.82)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(154.36) = 1.35, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.93)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(156.21) = -1.58, p = 0.232, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.13)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(142.55) = -1.75, p = 0.164, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.07)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(142.38) = -2.14, p = 0.068, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.30 to -0.05)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(143.12) = -1.81, p = 0.144, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.05)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(139.50) = -2.18, p = 0.062, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-3.36 to -0.16)
Plot
